AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 124 1 1 �df IGt LL manatt I P�elps � philfips HonorabYe Mayor and Members of the City Cauncil August 1 S, 2011 Page 13 CEQA xequires that mitigation measures be effective, feasible and fully enforceable and should be listed, considered ana selected to reduce all potentially significant ia,npacts to levals of insignificance. "An EIR shauld focus on mitigation m�as�res tl�at are feas'rble, practical, and effective." (Kastka & Zischke, Practice under the Ca.lifornia Environmental Quality Acfi (2 ed Cal CEB 2008), § 14.3, catfng Napa Citizera,s for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisars (20�] } 91 Ca1.App.4th 342, 365.) The mitiga#ion measures idenCified by the EIR and adopted t�y the Planning Commission are wholly inadequate to reduce the significant irnpacts of this project in any respect. o As a general rn�tter, the Mitigation Measures, and the Mitigation Manitoring and Reporting Plan (while reflecting sorne of the outsized risks of th.e proposed projeet) are far too detailed anc� ambitious for effective rnonitaring and enforcement to occur. {See FEIR, Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograxn.} As stated abo�e, they also underestimate th� amount or scope of carrective action that wauld be required to counteract the destructive effects of the project. This is not to say the MMRP shauld nat be arnbitious; rather, it reflects the dispropartionate siz� and cornp�exity of the project for this enviromnentally fragile area. Th� FETR daes not rnentian the addeci camplicatioil afmanitoring 18 building projects being separately undertaken by nunnerous individual owners. Neither this fact nar the apparent lack of feasibility af the mitigation measures was addressed in the ETR or the findings of tl�e Commission. We believe tk►al ihe Cammission's summary statement adopting the MMRP as "enforceable" and "capable af being fully implemented" is incorrect. Abseiit acieyuate mitigation measures, the Cornmission's conclusion that no significant environm�ntaf impact will result is similarly without basis. o The Commission finds that rneasures such as the planting of sinall replacement trees a��d vegeta�ioii will sufficiently mitigate the lass of five acr�s of open space, ninety-one mat�re i�rees, naturally-formed waterways and other aspec#s o�#his scenic area. (See e.g., FEIR, Mitigation Measure Biology-16) However, the project area has bee� largely untouched for o�er SO years (�he trees fonn a canopy o�er a cur�ved dirt road}, arid no at�nount of aesthetic mitigation will rcverse whAt affected residen�s have fit�ingly referred to as "strip mining" of the �area. o The FEIR refers to the "temporary" nature of the signi�Ficant air quality and noise imgact caused by praject development and construclion. The FEIR omits mentio�ling in this context that such const�etion is proposed to continue for up to nine years - although it dnes mention that tree reraova] and heavy construction will occur for the entire nine year c�nstruction period. (See DEIR sec. 3: